The longer video is a libertarian critique for why highways are a better investment than high speed rail, and the other videos provide some details about current projects. Assess the feasibility of high speed rail from the concepts we studied in class and the reading. Would mainstream economist support this initiative? What are they not considering in their analysis that we discussed? At the end of your discussion, discuss your own position on high speed rail projects
The high speed rail concept is a great idea which however fails in execution. The current system is that most people prefer to use their cars rather than trains. The speaker talks about how the railway line between Chicago and St. Louis takes approximately 3.5 hours. A high speed rail system would take the time to around 3 hours. Thus, this system would not really be helpful. Highways on the other hand are being currently used by people and are guaranteed funded by the highway tax. They allow 99% of the surface travel and thus need to be improved instead of money stolen from their funds towards this new technology which is questionable at best. The mainstream economists would not approve of high speed rails because this is not a growing technology. People is Asia and Europe are also opting to use personal transportation over railways. Therefore, it seems that investing in something that has less of a market share is not such a good idea. The discussion is on money and whether this form of transportation is convenient. Rather, the focus should be on whether cars are the way to the future. Personal cars pollute the environment and are unsafe. Highways are also great disruptors of the natural environment. High speed rails on the other hand are more efficient energy wise and can move more people and goods. They are also environmentally friendly and are very safe.
I think the high speed rail project is the way to the future. People might argue that they are expensive and that will not be used. I disagree, if high speed rails are the only mode of transportation then people will ride them. If they are convenient and cheap, people will ride them. Cars are a great option for travelling to rural areas. However, in cities and between cities, high speed train travel is the only way to go.
The high speed rail concept is a great idea which however fails in execution. The current system is that most people prefer to use their cars rather than trains. The speaker talks about how the railway line between Chicago and St. Louis takes approximately 3.5 hours. A high speed rail system would take the time to around 3 hours. Thus, this system would not really be helpful. Highways on the other hand are being currently used by people and are guaranteed funded by the highway tax. They allow 99% of the surface travel and thus need to be improved instead of money stolen from their funds towards this new technology which is questionable at best. The mainstream economists would not approve of high speed rails because this is not a growing technology. People is Asia and Europe are also opting to use personal transportation over railways. Therefore, it seems that investing in something that has less of a market share is not such a good idea. The discussion is on money and whether this form of transportation is convenient. Rather, the focus should be on whether cars are the way to the future. Personal cars pollute the environment and are unsafe. Highways are also great disruptors of the natural environment. High speed rails on the other hand are more efficient energy wise and can move more people and goods. They are also environmentally friendly and are very safe.
I think the high speed rail project is the way to the future. People might argue that they are expensive and that will not be used. I disagree, if high speed rails are the only mode of transportation then people will ride them. If they are convenient and cheap, people will ride them. Cars are a great option for travelling to rural areas. However, in cities and between cities, high speed train travel is the only way to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment